Retrieve a Gorelo document's version history, newest first, with cursor pagination to review changes and track revisions.
Lists a document's versions, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous page; omit for the first page. | |
| pageSize | No | Number of items per page, 1-200 (default 50). Out of range is rejected, not clamped. | |
| documentId | Yes | Document identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the ordering contract ('newest first'), which is genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations. It says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the schema, limits on version retention, or whether a deleted document's versions are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, putting the resource first and the ordering trailing. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of context that could have been included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple paginated read with full schema coverage, no output schema needed, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description plus structured fields are nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what the versions contain (IDs only? full snapshots?) and whether deleted/historical documents are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — documentId, cursor, and pageSize are all documented including the 1-200 range and default 50 — so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that documentId must reference an existing document) beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (a document's versions) plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from gorelo_get_document_version or gorelo_list_documents, leaving version-vs-document and list-vs-single to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though siblings like gorelo_get_document_version and gorelo_restore_document_version clearly overlap. The only implied context is 'you have a documentId and want its history,' which an agent could infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.